User talk:Frabby

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)

Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)

Hunan

I'm glad that you found the wrong co-ordinates for Gotterdammerung. I was wondering if you could take a look in your atlas of the Inner Sphere for Hunan. It's placed on the map here to the northeast of New Avalon, but it's listed as being part of the Capellan confederation and as having been part of the Terran Hegemony. I think this must be wrong, but I have no way of checking it. If it's possible, could you take a look?

Follow up: The co-ordinates are listed as: (X: 333.04 Y: 333.04)

Thanks, --Workerbee 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

It is located in the triangle formed by New Aragon, St. Andre and Foochow, fairly exactly "north" of Zaurak and Kaifeng. The Atlas gives the coordinates as X: 73,04 Y: 96,76

Btw it is a known problem that the planet's X/Y coordinates are wrong. When the entries were auto-generated, the X-coordinate were erroneously put into both the X and Y slot. Nic is aware of this and it will hopefully be corrected in a future update. (See Category talk:Planets# Major Problem with Coords). Frabby 13:10, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks again. --Workerbee 15:24, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Wouldn't that be (73.04, -96.76?), as Hunan is "south" of Terra? Since you've become the planetary coordinate guru, would you be able to check and make sure that the master file has as that data correct? I've already corrected Menkent, Blue Diamond, Gotterdammerung, and Hunan. Specifically, could you check out Sakhalin, Scituate, Cartago, and Chamdo? Thanks! --Scaletail 17:42, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Yes, you are absolutely right: Hunan is at Y -96.76, sorry! Regarding the others:

• There are in fact two systems by the name of Sakhalin: One is a CapCon/Sarna Supremacy world at X: 62.33 Y: -142.92, the other a Lyran world at X: -24.25 Y: 153.09. The one on this wiki is the CapCon world, Sakhalin (LC) is missing as of yet. I had already noted it on the article some time ago (CC/SS world is spelled Sachalin in German material, but not in the original English sources).
• Scituate has X: 88.67 Y: -221.94 in my Atlas. The wiki apparently used a positive Y coord, as it is erroneously shown at approximately the same altitude as Mannedorf (which is Y: 228.98).
• Cartago placement seems to be correct (at X: 141.09 Y: -10.17)
• Chamdo placement also seems to be correct (at X: 10.43 Y: -153.61); however, in the immediate vicinity Yunnah seems to be slightly misplaced. The correct coordinates for Yunnah are X: 27.67 Y: -124.13. It should be halfway between Corey and Second Try but here it is erroneously shown on the same altitude as Tsinghai and Chamdo, at Y: -153.61.

Checking the big file? I am honored, but it is a daunting task. It will take time. (Add the fact that some names were actually translated into German, i.e. Second Try is named Zweitversuch (lit.: Second Try) in German. That one could be guessed, but it literally took me a year to figure that Rand is meant to be The Edge...

Oh, and then there is that issue with "missing planets". It grew to quite a collection on the CBT forum, and there are other cases. This wiki, for example, has Ferris (Outworld Alliance) but there seems to be another Ferris in the Oberon Confederation which as of yet is not mentioned here. Frabby 18:17, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

The file does have Sakhalin (LC) at the correct coordinates. It has Scituate at 88.67,221.94 so that is incorrect. Yunnah is a tad off at 27.64,-154.13. Both have been corrected. It is daunting, I agree... but something does need to be done about the planets that are not represented, especially the planets of the Marian Hegemony and Circinus Federation. I also feel like Clan planets should be added, as well as those in the Deep Periphery, but that's a whole separate issue. --Scaletail 18:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Frabby, please review the discussion that developed after your opposition statement in regards to doing away with coordinates. The question needs to be settled as to from where these coordinates should reliably come. It's not as clear as simply providing printed canon coordinates.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual Ships Template

Hi Frabby,

I've put together an infobox template I think should hopefully be suitable for use with articles on individual WarShips. As soon as I can work out how to upload it/create the temple here on Sarna, I'll get it uploaded for your review. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (PST)

ETA: Ok, I think I've got it uploaded. At the moment, all of the fields bar the reference year and the ship name are optional, to make the template as flexible as possible. My intent was that the infobox could be used multiple times in a single page if needed, where we know a ship has been in service with multiple navies/organizations and commanding officers. An example of that might be something like a named ship from Historical: Liberation of Terra where we know the name of the ship, fleet and the CO in the battle to liberate Terra, and then later we know the same ship was in service with Clan Snow Raven under a particular Star Admiral within the Swift Wing Pursuit Star or something similar. Where all we know is that the ship served in different services - such as the Terran Alliance navy, Hegemony navy and Star League Defence Force navy, I'd expect that information to go in the article.

Equally, the ISD and OSD dates are intended to be flexible - they could be the date that Clan Coyote recommissioned the ship and then the date they lost it to the Snow Ravens, followed by another infobox detailing when Clan Snow Raven brought the ship into service and the date it was destroyed above Dyev. Equally, it might just be the date the ship was destroyed at Espilon Eridani during the Hegemony liberation campaign, if that's all that's known - although again, I'd expect the text of the article to provide clarity if needed.

Does the template look ok to you? I've tried placing a sample in the article on the TAS Dreadnought. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (PST)

Ah well, might as well discuss this here.

My idea for the template was to keep it brief, and collate only "hard" information on it, i.e. factoids that aren't bound to change. Remember that some ships are around literally for centuries. History stuff (name, affiliation, CO, etc.) is poorly suited for infoboxes and should always go into the article text instead. I have always hated Infoboxes with a given reference year with a vengeance, as they will be wrong for any other time period and therefore hardly relevant.

Also, I'd suggest to name it "InfoBoxIndividualVessel" so that the same infbox template can be used for individual WarShips, JumpShips, DropShips, Small Craft and Space Stations.

My suggestion for the infobox would be to include (only) image, last known name, type, class, date of launch, date of destruction/decommissioning.

That would mean the following should be removed from your template: refyear, CO, formation. We're missing type (e.g. WarShip, DropShip, Space Station).

Frabby (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (PST)

I have amended the template as instructed, although I also added a few new fields to allow for tracking up to two name changes within the template. I generated the Blake's Sword article to test the template and updated the Dreadnought article to match. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2012 (PST)

The in service date line seems to imply the ship "Blakes Blood" was in service with the WoB when it first launched rather than first being launch as the SLS 'Wier. You can add a template box below the info box for all named ships that served under dfferent nations and names. It can include when they served with different nations, those dates and under what name.--Seth (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (PST)

...which kinda showcases my problem with transient information in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the purpose of infobox templates should be to make our life easier, and should not be used where they don't. Given the potential complexity of a ship's history, I feel this all belongs into the article text proper and cannot adequately be crammed into an infobox. Frabby (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (PST)

The TAS Dreadnought article also shows that In-service/Out-of-service dates don't cut it, as that would be limited to a single owning faction and doesn't work well with a ship that was, say, built by the Hegemony, then operated by the Star League, mothballed, broken from mothballs, deployed again, refitted to upgraded specs, disabled, salvaged and repaired by some faction, captured by another faction, turned into a musem ship and finally destroyed by sabotage? Perhaps we could have a infobox section called "Ownership history" that gives a rundown of dates, names and affiliations. But I still think I prefer to remove this from the infobox altogether, and into the article.

As for images, I imagined this part only for images depicting the exact vessel in question. If an image of another (or an unnamed) vessel of the same class is shown then I think this must be spelled out in the image caption; if we want to do that then we need an optional image caption section in the infobox. Frabby (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (PST)

At this point, it sounds as if it would be easier to simply not have an infobox at all. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (PST)

Sorry if that sounded frustrating. I do think that having an infobox would certainly help to organize the articles, even if it's a very small or short infobox. We just need to hammer out the details. Frabby (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2012 (PST)

I think the Individual WarShips category needs to be made a subcategory of the Individual JumpShip category, for simplicity's sake; at the moment, every single WarShip is going to end up being double-tapped, and anyone looking for JumpShips is going to have to wade through a category that contains all the JumpShips and all the WarShips, while all the WarShips will already have their own category.

In terms of naming conventions - which probably need to be agreed before I start rushing in and spawning lots of articles - I would suggest that we append the term (vessel) in brackets after the ship name. I'm thinking here of ships like the Dreadnaught-class Black Lion. Where we have two ships of the same name of different classes, I'd suggest using the name of the class in brackets, with one taking the (vessel) suffix if the class is unknown. I'm thinking here of the 31st century Conqueror-class Ark Royal built by Clan Snow Raven versus the Star League era SLS Ark Royal that won the first Martial Olympiad. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2012 (PST)

Sounds good, though I'm undecided if we should add "(vessel)" to unique ship names. It feels like disambiguating something that doesn't require disambiguation. A similar problem is the affiliation code - "SLS Manassas" vs. simply "Manassas". I can see a lot of redirects going up here.

One of the reasons why I want an infobox, and a reason I previously failed to communicate, is that the infobox can be made to include a category - "Category:Individual vessels" in this case. Saves us the trouble of adding that tag to each and every article. Still, the articles will have to categorize by type, subtype and class, e.g. a given article will be categorized into "Individual Black Lion-class ships", "Individual Cruisers", "Individual WarShips" besides being classed into "Individual vessels" through the infobox.

Btw, I don't think we should treat WarShips as a subcategory of JumpShips. They are very different animals, and what is only a secondary function for the former is the raison d'etre for the latter..

Anyone else here who wants to chime in? 12:39, 22 December 2012 (PST)

To be clear, I only meant to include (vessel) in a unique ship name when there was a need for disambiguation - hence my SLS Black Lion versus Black Lion class example.

I would still prefer to avoid categorising WarShips as both WarShips and JumpShips, which isn't the case at the moment; it feels like double-counting WarShips and making JumpShip category listings unnecessarily cluttered. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2012 (PST)

Some questions:

1. How will you handle situations where a vessel gets captured? For example several WarShips were built for the Star League, were recovered by and entered service with the FWL, but were later captured by the WoB. If you're not wedded to an infobox, you could modify the tables we use to indicate the reign of a ruler to cover that data.

2. In the above situation, do you propose an article covering the career of the individual ship? Using the ships mentioned in #1 above would you have three articles (one for SLS Lollipop, one for FWLS Sucker, one for WoBS Rock Crystal)?--Mbear^(talk) 09:25, 26 December 2012 (PST)

From my point of view, I'd cover it the same way as I do planet articles where the planet changes name, and how I've tried to cover it in the Blake's Sword article. The article uses the most recent name for the ship, with redirects for the old names pointing toward it; the article itself is divided up by service, so the article for the ship you've described would be an article for the Rock Crystal, with the history section including a description of it's service as the Lollipop and Sucker, and with redirects for Lollipop/SLS Lollipop, Sucker/FWLS Sucker and WoBS/WBS Rock Crystal all pointing towards it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (PST)

ETA: Those rulership succession boxes are a really good idea, btw. I'm trying to think what the greatest number of changes a ship has been through that we can identify. 3 is pretty common, particularly for WOB ships and maybe some of the Clan ships. Is there a ship with a name that's changed 4 times? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2012 (PST)

OK. Sounds like you've got it. Just add that to the create a warship article, please, so others can see how to do it. And to answer your question, I'm not aware of any ships that have changed hands 4 times, but that doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Maybe you can start with 3 entries and add more as options?--Mbear^(talk) 04:15, 27 December 2012 (PST)

It would be easy enough to set up a template with ten variable fields to track up to ten different name changes, and thereby have an info box that can list all of the previous names a ship has had up to the current name, if that would be a useful thing to have in addition to the succession template? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2012 (PST)

Honestly I have no opinion at this time. WarShips aren't my thing. If I see something that I'm not sure of, I'll let you know. :)--Mbear^(talk) 07:19, 2 January 2013 (PST)

OK, possibly tangential question; how do you want Assault DropShips categorised? For example, Mercenaries Supplemental identifies the Kicker specifically as an Assault Triumph. Do you want these DropShips categorised based on the original class - so Triumph, in this case - as the variant, so Assault Triumph, or as both, with Assault Triumph-class DropShips as a defined sub-category of Triumph-class DropShips, with Assault Dropships categories as both, so checking the Triumph category would bring up all Triumphs, but checking the Assault Triumph would filter in only those specifically defined as being the Assault variants? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)

Phew, good question. My first impulse was to treat them as a variant of the class in question, i. e. lump the Assault Triumph together wirh the Triumph. But you're right that it might make sense to differentiate. I'm open to suggestions. Frabby (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2013 (PST)

Whatever we agree for the Assault variants should probably also apply to the -C variants, where they're clearly differentiated... although I've not found a named -C variant, despite having been through both Field Manual: Mercenaries and the first Mercenaries Supplemental, I've not found one yet.

From my point of view, I don't think that we lose anything by taking Assault DropShips and adding both categories, Individual {DropShip}-class Vessels and Individual Assault {DropShip}-class Vessels, and making the latter a subcategory of the former. What we would gain is the ability to define subsets of the main category, which could be useful information for someone. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)

After a little research I've made up my mind: I vote for Assault-subtype DropShips to be considered separate designs from their parent designs. They should get their own article and their own "List of named vessels" category, and should be referenced in their parent design's article (and vice versa) as a "related design". I agree with your reasoning that they're different designs in the fashion of "-C" DropShips and IIC designs (with the Broadsword being the Leopard-C in all but name, and "-C" in turn being the "IIC" of spacecraft), and no mere variants. In the case of the Assault Triumph the massively increased mass is probably the deciding factor for me that screams "re-design". Frabby (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2013 (PST)

That makes sense, I'll swap the Assault DropShips that I've found over to use the new category.

On a seperate but related note, I've been adding the ship names to the various ship class pages; some only have an entry or two, but some, like the Union DropShip, have a fair number of named vessels appearing. Should I continue to list the individual ships within the class articles, or would you rather see a link to the relevant individual ships category? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2013 (PST)

I was going to suggest to simply include a "See also" link to the respective class's "List of named vessels" category. I'd do it myself, but I'm swamped with work elsewhere and am not terribly active on BTW right now. Hope it'll be better in a week or two. Frabby (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (PST)

If you can give me an example of another page that uses a "See also" section, I'll use that as an example and roll it out across the various articles. ETA: Found an example! Working on it now.

The WarShips are going to be hard work because they tend to attract a lot of attention, but I'm starting to see a healthy number of individual DropShip and JumpShip articles now. It almost feels like I'm making progress! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (PST)

Thanks!

hey, there's nothing like one of the powers that be telling you your work is crap to suck the fun out of your day. Thanks for putting up with me. (And thank goodness Herb didn't get involved.) That'll teach me my lesson: Never try to use logic and real world examples to try to fill in gaps in a description. ;) --Mbear^(talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (PST)

DropShip classes

Hy Frabby, i notice that you revamp the various JumpShip, DropShip, WarShip categories, but i miss the Inner Sphere DropShip classes and Clan DropShip classes category.--Doneve (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (PST)

I couldn't bring myself to re-introduce these categories. Their usefulness is arbitrary at best, but the really important problem is that Sarna BTW is an OOC source covering a fictional universe. As such, Sarna BTW needs to avoid time references relative to "now". Words like currently, now, recently, soon, incumbent are all verboten because they imply Sarna BTW to be set at a fixed point in time. I do count "extinct" among them because you can never know if those "extinct" designs won't re-appear in the future. Such things have been known to happen in BattleTech, after all. Frabby (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (PST)

Founder's Awards

Hy Frabby,

I noticed the news article this morning when I logged in about nominating people for the Founders' Awards, and I wanted to check if I'm eligible to nominate people - the news article says all users can nominate, but the Awards page says that only Admins can nominate people for Founders' Awards. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (PST)

The Awards page says Founder's Awards "may" be nominated by Admins but also states nomination is not required. Given that nomination isn't required and that there aren't terribly many admins active right now I reckon any user may (and should) nominate. I'll update the project page accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. Frabby (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2013 (PST)

TRO: Vehicle Annex (Revised)

Hy Frabby, i see you're a little bit involed in TRO:VA Revised, when i read the credits section, congrats :), i think you become the man to update the Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex page with the new Revised version, and how many you was involved in this great update version.--Doneve (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (PST)

The Theseus Knot

Hy Frabby, I've just added articles to the wiki for the three WarShips mentioned in the BattleCorps short story The Theseus Knot, the Lakshmi, Klingenthal and Minotaur. I'm working from Mendrugo's review, as I'm not a BC subscriber, and his review differs from your plot summary on here slightly. Can you take a quick look at the three articles when you get a spare moment, and check I've got the details right? Ta. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (PST)

Hy again. I just read through your plot summary for Theseus Knot, and you have the Lakshmi down as an Avatar class cruiser - do you have a page reference? If you do, I'll update the description of the SLS Lakshmi accordingly. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (PST)

It's page 94 of the print anthology (and the third page of that particular story, with a half-page image on p. 2) so it would be on page 3 or 4 of the PDF: "he still missed the elegance of the Lakshmi. Fresh from the builder's slip, he had commanded the Avatar-class heavy cruiser..." Frabby (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (PST)

Thanks

Thanks Frabby, for fix my misspelt Friden Aerospace Park page, my fingerst are to fast, and the brain was to slow .--Doneve (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2013 (PST)

Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers

For your approval, I give you the 4th Skye Rangers. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2013 (PST)

Frabby - please checked the Talk pages for Heany and the Fourth. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2013 (PST)

Thehawk

Hy Frabby,

I posted a rather lengthy couple of comments on the talk page of one of our new members, Thehawk, after I spotted him or her having some trouble with references. (I know I could've just pointed them at the help page, but I thought it might seem friendlier to show more of an interest). I later realised that Thehawk was trying to add one of the unique 'Mech variants from the new MechWarrior Online new game to the Commando page here. Is it ok to incorporate those 'Mechs into the main pages? I realise that I really don't know what the policy is regarding combat units from computer games. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2013 (PST)

MWO is an official (if expressly apocryphal) BattleTech product; ergo, original material from MWO is equally official and apocryphal. Case in point, the "Blazing Inferno" Commando variant described under "Apocryphal variants" just below the Death's Knell.

As for what goes on this wiki, everything (Policy:Notability). The only caveat being that whatever BTW covers needs to have been published elsewhere, as BTW does not seek to publish BT fan fiction. That latter part is what the Fanon Purge was about. To wit, even non-canonical fanon can be notable enough to warrant inclusion here on the wiki, if it is notable enough and was published elsewhere. See for example Berserkerbanden or LaCasse list.

I don't have time now but I'll clean up the Commando article shortly. Frabby (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2013 (PST)

Corrections: Fourth Skye Rangers

Frabby - So I tried this: CBT Forum Kathleen Heany Questions, and came up empty. Oh well. Looking over it all, I see that you were right. Regarding the 4th Skye Rangers, I've cleaned up and consolidated the assumptions, both in the body and the notes. I resubmit the article to you for approval, and hope that you'll find it of good quality. If you like how I handled the discrepancies and assumptions, I'll make similar changes to the Kathleen Heany article. Please let me know what you think. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (PST)

Ready the summary comments - this is why i never wiki edit with a smart phone. ;)

Let me know what you think when you have time. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Question Regarding Administration

Hi Frabby, Sorry to bother you. I've lately had little more time on the weekends to write up couple of articles on minor characters in the Battletech universe which haven't been fleshed out yet. I wanted touch base with you, ask who would be good person to interact make sure my articles i'm writing up are up to Sarna.net standards. I'm uncertain if your fully retired, i would classify me as part-timer who semi-retired. There been large influx of better writers than myself (I'm grammer challenged.) coming on lately, when i first came on there weren't many folks aside you and rev and couple others. Any advice you could shoot myway, i'd glad take in. - Wrangler (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2013 (PST)

You're a valued member of the Sarna BTW community, and with a healthy number of good edits. Maybe your writing/grammar isn't always top notch, but you're not the only one in this and frankly, I can live with bad grammar much better than with wrong information. My advice, therefore, is to be bold and write/edit stuff here to your heart's desire - the more the merrier. Just mind that you get your facts right. Grammar can be cleaned up. :) Frabby (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (PST)

Review: Perigard Zalman

Frabby - I'd like to nominate Rebs for a Good Article Award for his Perigard Zalman piece. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (PST)

Yes. And another one for Dawn Moffat. It's great to see articles of this quality! Frabby (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (PST)

Product Infobox

Hy Frabby, can you take a look on Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged - Age of War, the infobx on the top is a little bit broken.--Doneve (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (PST)

Hmm. I can see the box framing is missing on the top, but I have no idea how to fix that. I'm really helpless regarding coding issues. Wasn't this issue raised in the past already (for the Template:InfoBoxCreature I think)? Frabby (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (PST)

Yes you are right, we had the promblem in the past, i talk to Mbear if he can help.--Doneve (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (PST)

There's a missing border-top CSS rule there. Unfortunately it's in a CSS file I can't access, I need to have Nic make the fix. I'll ping him in the Sarna wiki forum.--Mbear^(talk) 09:34, 20 February 2013 (PST)

I've asked Nic to make the change.--Mbear^(talk) 09:40, 20 February 2013 (PST)

Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back

Hi Frabby. So what do we do about canonity of MWO? There no source for hard canon facts units being depected in the game. I edited Canon when i removed a entry about MWO Variant of the Pretty Baby Awesome, which MWO came up with some stats for. There IS a Pretty Baby which is canon, but thats notable pilot from TRO:3025, same pilot. But the Awesome has notations of being modified. It Still shouldn't be listed as Canon unit unless we have valid source with the Stats. I read information in the Canon article to make sure me adding the MWO among other things not a valid source of canon material since its a video game. I wasn't aware of your conversation with Herb when i did that edit. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (PST)

You're right, MWO is not canon. But even if not canonical it is an official product. This is our very definition of apocryphal. MWO is in the same boat here as BattleTechnology or the other computer games.

The tricky part is to properly segregate fully canonical information from apocryphal information. We've had a very similar situation already with the Death's Knell variant of the Commando a canonical but unstatted 'Mech that was statted as a variant instead of a standard 'Mech by MWO. It should be mentioned under "Apocryphal variants" or probably just under variants, but then clearly marked as apocryphal. Add a line stating that the 'Mech as such is canon but the non-standard configuration is apocrypha from MWO. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (PST)

Is there way to no other way to list this variant which fall under the apocrypha? I've found that when you add apocrypha, editors tend to put apocrypha tag on the article, and it affects the entire thing. That was why i whole saled removed it. Could we have seperate article listing all apocrypha 'Mechs instead without getting the main canon articles getting mixed up with it?. People looking up units could end up saying Sarna is listing apocrypha variants, without really reading the article (or know what apocrypha means in some cases...) -- Wrangler (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2013 (PST)

This touched upon a bigger point: Apocrypha tags. Back when the tags we currently use were introduced (I did most of that and also re-wrote the Policy:Canon, in co-operation with Revanche and Scaletail), there was a discussion about the apocryphal tags. My suggestion was to approach the issue much like Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki, does it: They don't mark the entire article, they just use two tags "Apocryphal information begins here" and "Apocryphal information ends here" within the article. That's a much cleaner and easier-to-understand approach, but I was voted down. The others feared the articles would look cluttered and unfinished with the tags used in mid-article in this way.

I still don't agree with this old reasoning and I still think the Apocryphal Content tags are not optimal, so I'm open to suggestions here. I might start another attempt at segregating apocryphal content by Begin/End tags. After all, we've had our Fanon Purge since then. Frabby (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2013 (PST)

Well, i won't want see the apocryphal listed items abolished from the site. They do deserve their place here. I think a new code/template needs to be setup to keep them from confusing would be readers. Too many times i've seen mentioned on the offical message boards that they were thinking that listed apocryphal line item was in fact as canon as the rest of the article. Personally i'd endorse a seperation section in a main article that mentions the apocryphal variant, but Sarna's rep is getting ruined by stuff that either not cited or clearly marked as being questionable. I think draconian method must come, where i think that there should be page dedicated list of apocryphal items put togther or be listed in its own article. I'm more lists such as: List of Apocryphal BattleMechs or List of Apocryphal BattleMech Variants. I know it going be pain in butt, but i can't see anyway to keep it seperated without people getting confused. A tag/flag which doesn't effect the article(which i don't think is coded) could be made be listed next to the apocryphal variant for instance. Highlight yellow or something so a read can tell there something up with it. Somewhat similar to how Rules Notes are listed for Equipment. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2013 (PST)